Do you know what he means by this, is it possible to determine the likelihood of an SNP being non-private by analysing the DNA of one person, I assumed that private SNPs were just more recent, and therefore only found in one or a couple of families.

Here is what Thomas Krahn wrote to Kirsten Saxe, one of the co-admins. for the Leinster group:

"Dear Kirsten,

L69 and L159 are "at the edge" between SNPs and STRs because they are right at a transition between a poly G stretch and a GT dinucleotide repeat. So we may expect a somewhat slower mutation frequency than a STR but a higher mutation frequency than a SNP.

This is what I wrote to Ken Nordtvedt when L159 was first discovered in haplogroup I:

L159 isn't only close to a STR but it is even part of the same dinucleotide STR as L69, just 2 bp downstream. It is just an extension of the Poly C region in the other direction. If you compare the DNA sequences next to each other you will see what I mean:

AAACTGGGGGGGGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGCG (I-M26)[WTY participant and other I-M26 men]AAACTGGGGGGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGCG (HUGO and most others)AAACTGGGGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGTGCG (I-M423, GRC014676 G-L13, GRC000617 G-P18)L69......^L159.......^(note that the GT repeat count may vary and is disregarded for the L96/L159 status)

From our experience with L69 I'd consider this as rather unstable for anthropological dimensions. However for the fine resolution within a haplogroup this may be of some limited value.

[Your participant] has exactly the same configuration as [the I-M26 participant]. So in deed I'd start looking into close relatives for ordering L159.2. Start with very close haplotypes and slowly expand to more distant matches as long as you get L159.2+ results. Other R-P312, R-L21, R-M222 WTY participants are L159.2 ancestral so far.

Is there any hint of how far downstream it is from L21? If its an Irish or isles specific much more recent SNP like M222 then it may do no more than provide an SNP for a local cluster - good news for people interested in the genealogical angle but not much use in terms of pre-isles origin.

The reason why it's not on any other forum is because I'm the only one who has posted the results on another web site other than the Leinster cluster site. I originally got word from the group administrator.

We actually have a couple of people who match the modal who are from northern France and Baden-Wurttemburg(Hoffenheim). I think it is especially interesting that L159.2 is present in I2a males as well.

The Carmack/Leinster connection is evident in his distance from the Leinster modal. He matches the known Leinster surnames: O'Byrne, Kavanaugh and Kinsella. I believe Carmack is also a derivative of the Irish McCormick, so in those regards it's pretty certain what area we're looking at.

Then you have FitzWilliam whose ancestry is from the Isle of Man. The cluster tends to aggregate around the areas of southern Scotland (Beattys), northern England and the known Leinster clans, although we have some continental matches in France and Germany.

The Carmack/Leinster connection is evident in his distance from the Leinster modal. He matches the known Leinster surnames: O'Byrne, Kavanaugh and Kinsella. I believe Carmack is also a derivative of the Irish McCormick, so in those regards it's pretty certain what area we're looking at.

Then you have FitzWilliam whose ancestry is from the Isle of Man. The cluster tends to aggregate around the areas of southern Scotland (Beattys), northern England and the known Leinster clans, although we have some continental matches in France and Germany.

Okay. Carmack's documentation doesn't get him back to the Old World but his haplotype fits with the one that is named the Leinster Modal.

As far as haplotypes go...

These two L159+ plus guys are not off-modal on much in the way of slower mutating STR markers. Of the slowest 30 of FTDNA's 67, one of the only two that either is off-WAMH is that PAMN9 Carmack is 531=12. However A7STZ FitzWilliam/Quilliam is WAMH, which is 11. The other location, DYS393, has FitzWilliam at 25 while Carmack is WAMH, which is 24.

Well, that just means that 531 and 393 are NOT (edit) that useful at predicting L159+.

Here are markers where these two match on, in order of slowest to fastest.448=18, 389i=14, 557=17, 442=11, 446=14, 607=14, 570=18, 449=30If you have much in common with these, then you should run and order the L159 test, IMHO.

It is interesting, at least according to my notes (which are just my notes - they could be wrong), is that Carmack is 464x=2c2g which is rare and fits a lot of people in the Leinister sub-group of Beatty/Byrnes/McLaughlin, et al folks. However FitzWilliam is the more common 3c1g. So if L159+ occurrs in both 2c2g and 3c1g L21+ folks, then it must have happened first... or FitzWilliam "back-mutated" at 464x? Is that possible?